228
NATHAN AEL
NATHANAEL
commonly known. The Scriptures to which he specially refers would he Gn 17' 49'", Dt WK
NathanaeFs question, ' Can any good thing ? ' etc., does not imply that Nazaretli had a bad reputation, but that the insignilicant village, so close to his own home, was not a likely birthplace for the Messiah. Was a pettj' place, so familiar to them l)oth, tlius honoured? What prophecy said anything of the kind ? The prophecy alluded to in yit 2-^ is not known to us, and was probably mxknown to Nathanael. In any case, Nathanael's question confirms the .statement that the miracle at Cana was the first of Christ's signs. If Jesus had worked miracles at Nazareth, Nathanael at Cana must have heard of them.
Philip's ' Come and see' is in harmony with the practical bent of his mind (12-i 14^), and is the best answer to anything like prejudice. ' He thatdoeth the truth cometh to the light ' (3", cf. P) ; and this is what Nathanael does, with good results. It is part of his guilelessness that he is willing to have any prejudice removed, and he at once accepts Philip's proposal ; cf. 4^^^- ^. Christ praises him as truly an Israelite, i.e. as one who has some- thing more than the blood of the patriarch, viz. a character which corresponds to the dignity of the name (Ps 73^). In him the guile of Jacob the supplanter has given place to the righteousness ■which wins a victory with God. He is one whose death a prophet may desire (Nu 23"*).
Nathanael overhears the praise of himself, and the question with which he replies to it has been criticised as arguing a want of modesty on his part. But his reply does not mean, ' I know that I am all that : but how do you know it ? ' Rather, he exhibits surprise that a total stranger should express any opinion about him. He somewhat coldly intimates that he doubts the value of praise which can hardly be based upon experience. But, like Mary's 'How shall this be?' (Lk 1^), his question does not so much ask for proof as express astonisliment. In both cases the proof which was not demanded was granted. Gabriel gave Mary a sign that he could read her future, for he showed that he knew all about Elisabeth's pi'ospects of a son ; and Jesus gives Nathanael a sign that He could read his character, for He sliows that He knows all about his private conduct (cf. what we read of Elisha in 2 K 5'-^ 6''^). Natiianael at once recognizes the significance of this knowledge, and in his reply 'the true Israelite acknowledges his King.'
It is right to allow for the jiossibility that in Nathanael's confession (f^), and in that of the Baptist (v.^^), the Evangelist may be putting into the mouths of others language which had become natural to himself, but was not actually used by them. St. John was so full of the doctrine that Jesus as the Messiah was the Son of God, that he may have made those who accepted Him as the Messiah express their belief in a form which was not used until somewhat later. We must admit that thus to antedate the terminology of a fuller appreciation of the truth would be possible. But Ps 2^- "^ will suffice to explain the language which the Evangelist attributes to the Baptist and to Natiianael._ This Psalm was generally recognized as Messianic, and seems to have been very familiar (Ac 4=3-28 1333^ He 1-5 55). In the fulness ^f his con- viction Nathanael quite naturally uses the fullest Scriptural designation of the Messiah with which he was acquainted. Experience of Christ's mirac- ulous knowledge had convinced him, as it con- vinced the Samaritan woman (4^9) and Thomas (2027. 28)^ i\^^^ Jesus stood in the closest relation to God. Hence he uses this title of the Messiah (11^, Mt 26«^ Mk 3" II 5^11 153«||, Lk 4") rather than the common 'Son of David' (Mt Q"^ \2-^ 15-
2030. 31 219-15 22« etc.). Although ' Son of God ' and ' King of Israel ' both indicate the Messiah, the titles are not quite synonymous, as is shown by the repetition of ' Thou art.' ' Son of God' gives the relation to God — a relation which would be only vaguely under.stood by Nathanael ; ' King of Israel ' gives the relation to the Cho.sen People. Thus tlie two titles complete one another.
Nothing is gained by suggesting (Cheyneiu Enc. Bibl. iii. col. 3338) that ' when thou wast under the fig-tree' ought to be ' when thou wast making supplication,' because the Hebrew for the one (iinna nhni iveattd mithhanncn) would resemble the Hebrew for the other (njNrin nnn .xriNi, werdtd tahath hattc'enu). What the Evangelist gives us is in- trinsically more probable, as being more definite, and therefore more likely to impress Nathanael. Nathanael seems to have believed that Jesus knew what he was thinking about under the fig-tree, just as the Samaritan woman believed that He knew all about her past life. Fresh from the teaching of the Baptist, Nathanael may have been meditating on the coming of the Messiah as near at hand. It was under a fig-tree that Augustine heard the ' Tolle, lege' (Conf. vill. xii. 1). See OTrefi". to = fig-tree.'